|
|
Post by foreveryoung on Apr 15, 2010 16:44:25 GMT -5
I would have to be a naive idiot to think Triple H never did his share of backstabbing and politics backstage to get ahead and STAY there.. Lets face it.. Yes he was a big star but he wasnt nearly at a level which would in turn give him over a decade of title shots and being in and around the main event.. Usually booking like that will go to that megastar who touches the masses.. Guys like Rock, Austin, Hogan, Bruno etc. Big time money drawers and viewership grabbers. I wasnt there to see what was going on behind closed doors at the time, but there is no doubt Triple H always had alot of stroke and alot of success for a guy who was never the biggest star..
During that time you can argue guys like Booker and RVD were much more over than triple H was or has been since. Booker and RVD were on the cutting edge I think of making it big time and breaking through.. IT seems unless your friend of triple H, you are never going to come out of a fued with him looking better than you did going in. I mean thats pretty obvious.
So I don't know.... But I do know that politics run rampant in wrestling.. And to have a run like Triple H has had over the last decade and then some regardless of all the quad tears which caused him to only decline more and more and the fact that he was a star but not a megastar, (a push like Triple H received which is given to bigger stars then him) and his staleness since his 2nd quad tear.. Yea a bit fishy and unfair to others who were more over and better in the ring at the time than he was
Booker and RVD should have gotten a nice extended run with the strap considering how mega-over both were and were on the cutting edge of breaking through.. I feel bad for them actually.. They two of the most over guy during the entire 00s and what point or another.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Apr 15, 2010 17:34:01 GMT -5
Booker losing at Mania was as brutal a setback to a career as I've seen in a Mania match. Booker has the ultimate storyline of being the underdog with absolutly no chance, being told he has no chance and then getting the win in the face of adversity. Most "underdog" stories now really aren't, as "overcoming the odds" is as cliche as anything in wrestling today. But this would have worked and winning the title would have helped Booker T a hell of a lot more than it would have hurt Triple H.
I still think Goldberg should have been brought in as a heel, they could have sacrificed Booker to him and given him a longer run with the title before dropping it whomever else was near the top of the card. This period in the WWE was a huge lull on RAW. They didnt spice things up or push surprises out nearly enough and I think they missed the boat far too often.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Apr 15, 2010 18:03:37 GMT -5
I've said it many times, but I'm fully convinced the plan was for Booker T to win at WM but the plan was changed because of one man. Not HHH, but Bill Goldberg.
Had WWE not signed Goldberg right before 'Mania, I'm sure that Booker would have won.
|
|
jamielowndes {N}
Unicron
The following post has been paid for by the Nexus World Order
Posts: 3,240
|
Post by jamielowndes {N} on Apr 15, 2010 18:16:53 GMT -5
HHH shouldve dropped the belt at Mania, and then just had it back at Backlash if Booker was supposedly not getting the right reaction. That was just horrific booking.
|
|
|
|
Post by waluigi on Apr 15, 2010 18:16:57 GMT -5
In any case, why can't they do it? If it made more money for them as a result, it's fair game. Did it? |
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
HaHa U FaLL 4 LaVa TriK
Posts: 46,933 
Member is Online
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Apr 15, 2010 19:43:58 GMT -5
It was as big of a burial as I've ever seen at Mania.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Apr 16, 2010 0:04:21 GMT -5
I don't know if HE did, but the storyline sure as hell did. Two months of being told "your people" aren't champions and how Booker was never good enough to be on Triple H's level. Booker T couldn't be champion. It's just common sense, you NEVER do that storyline if you don't intend to give the people the big pay off. I don't care if it took the entire army to defeat Booker T that night. What do you think people remember? That he got cheated, or that after that entire horrible, racially driven storyline he NEVER got to win the belt from Hunter? They never got the image of Booker being triumphant and debunking all of Hunter's claims by winning the World Title. One of WWE's most hideous booking moves I can ever remember. From start to finish. Not only this, but then...once Booker got some solid momentum behind him, and had a decent run going as "King Bookah"....guess who decides to come back and kill THAT moment of fleeting glory deader than hell for Booker? It seemed that, like Chris Jericho....Booker was one of Hunter's favorite personal whipping boys/playthings. Don't know WHY....don't know HOW...but it's there, plain as day. It's weird how, when Hunter is in the dominant heel position, he rarely ever gets one upped or fed his comeuppance (Batista being the exception there....and Cena too, IIRC) and yet, when he's the babyface, the HEELS that he's facing NEVER get to look as dominant as Hunter does when he's in their role. Booker is a grand example of that, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Apr 16, 2010 0:41:43 GMT -5
I don't know if HE did, but the storyline sure as hell did. Two months of being told "your people" aren't champions and how Booker was never good enough to be on Triple H's level. Booker T couldn't be champion. It's just common sense, you NEVER do that storyline if you don't intend to give the people the big pay off. I don't care if it took the entire army to defeat Booker T that night. What do you think people remember? That he got cheated, or that after that entire horrible, racially driven storyline he NEVER got to win the belt from Hunter? They never got the image of Booker being triumphant and debunking all of Hunter's claims by winning the World Title. One of WWE's most hideous booking moves I can ever remember. From start to finish. This. It's okay for HHH to say the things he did since he's the heel, but having him retain, it made WWE the heels. |
|
Bub (BLM)
Patti Mayonnaise
advocates duck on rodent violence
Fed. Up.
Posts: 37,742
|
Post by Bub (BLM) on Apr 16, 2010 1:08:01 GMT -5
I don't know if HE did, but the storyline sure as hell did. Two months of being told "your people" aren't champions and how Booker was never good enough to be on Triple H's level. Booker T couldn't be champion. It's just common sense, you NEVER do that storyline if you don't intend to give the people the big pay off. I don't care if it took the entire army to defeat Booker T that night. What do you think people remember? That he got cheated, or that after that entire horrible, racially driven storyline he NEVER got to win the belt from Hunter? They never got the image of Booker being triumphant and debunking all of Hunter's claims by winning the World Title. One of WWE's most hideous booking moves I can ever remember. From start to finish. Completely agree. It seems even dumber when you think about how over Booker T was back then. The crowd was so into the guy. |
|
|
|
Post by Hakumental on Apr 16, 2010 1:08:09 GMT -5
Buried? No.
Dismembered, dumped in the trunk of an impounded car, and left for the SVU cops to find a week later? More accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Apr 16, 2010 1:19:01 GMT -5
I don't know if HE did, but the storyline sure as hell did. Two months of being told "your people" aren't champions and how Booker was never good enough to be on Triple H's level. Booker T couldn't be champion. It's just common sense, you NEVER do that storyline if you don't intend to give the people the big pay off. I don't care if it took the entire army to defeat Booker T that night. What do you think people remember? That he got cheated, or that after that entire horrible, racially driven storyline he NEVER got to win the belt from Hunter? They never got the image of Booker being triumphant and debunking all of Hunter's claims by winning the World Title. One of WWE's most hideous booking moves I can ever remember. From start to finish. You said everything I was going to. Man, it still makes me angry. This was actually the reason I quit watching until the ECW revival, and why I loathe Triple H's reign of terror. It was so repulsive that it still makes me shake my head in disbelief. I love strong, dominant heel champions (I'm a WCW fan, after all), but as you so eloquently stated, you only introduce the "unrepentant racist white guy" element when he's definitely going to lose. Otherwise... well, what the hell are you trying to say? |
|
|
|
Post by Diamond Dallas Dom on Apr 16, 2010 1:42:30 GMT -5
Geez, just watching that promo makes me want Booker to win that title.
I was on a hiatus from wrestling during this time period. However, I did just stop watching around the time when BookDust split and he was WAYYY over at that point in time. I think this was his peak and it's a darn shame they didn't capitalize on it. I think this would have been great for wrestling if he did win it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Apr 16, 2010 2:12:34 GMT -5
The way I understand it, is that WWE booked the whole feud with the intentions of having Booker T win the world title. Then they changed their minds and kept continuing to build the feud without deciding who was going to win, and then finally decided to go with HHH retaining the title.
Believe it or not, but HHH has always been a transitional champ, except for mabe 1 title reign. You can be a transitional champ for 10 years, so long as the company can't decide who you're going to lose the title to. You can be a transitional champ for 2 years and you can be a true champ for 4 months, it's all determined by the reason why. the true champ is the guy that's the flagship of the company, which means that this is the guy that WWE is going to try to get the most mileage out of when they are the champ and make the most money with, even if it only lasts for 4 months. The transitional reigns are for the purpose of the company being in the "looking" phase, but not trying to get their mileage out of the current title holder, but then when they "spot" someone, they put the title on him and try to get their mileage out of him, however long that lasts.
Wrestlemania is their biggest show, and if you are going to be the flagship of the company, all of their biggest moments have to involve you, and that includes winning the title at Wrestlemania, defending the title at Wrestlemania, and being the flagship guy year round. So, most transitional champs, if you pay attention over the years, usually win the title in the fall, any time from September to the Royal Rumble, and they either lose the title at Wrestlemania, or they keep the title at Wrestlemania just to lose it right after ect...but the bottom line is that the transitionsal champ wins the title in the fall in order to start a rivalry with a hopeful flagship win, lose, or draw.
So I'm pretty sure that WWE planned for Booker T to win the title at Wrestlemania XIX atleast since December 2002, when HHH wone the 3 stages of hell match, but possibly earlier when HHH was awarded the title on September 2nd 2002. I remember HHH saying something to the effect of "WWE wanted me to lose the title to this guy, and so we'd start building him up, but then we'd say it doesn't look like this guy is working out too well, let's go with this other guy instead" and so on and so forth.
Basically HHH said in some shoot interviews that he basically went through hell while WWE was trying to figure out who was going to be the flagship, and the longer he had the title, the more degrading things he had to do in order to still be hated, and worst one of all was the Katie Vick storyline. Apparently HHH thought that Booker T was "hit or miss" on the Wrestlemania documentary but didn't mean it as an insult and still felt that Booker T had all the tools.
It looks like that WWE thought that Goldberg was better though, and so they decided to have HHH retain the title to keep his heat so he can have a good strong feud with Goldberg, but their were complaints after Wrestlemania that it made Booker T look weak more than made HHH look strong. But then Goldberg and HHH both got hurt, and that's why they had the elimination chaimber. After Goldbrg won the title in September, I guess WWE decided that Chris Benoit would be better, and so guess what? HHH wins the title in December to go lose it to Benoit. But then I guess WWE decided that Randy Orton was better, and the whole Evolution group was created and completely designed to make Randy Orton a main event star in the 1st place and it was never about Batista. But, right when they greenlighted Randy Orton to be turned Babyface and win the title and be the flagship, WWE decided that Batista would be better based off of his reactions. So guess what, HHH wins the title in the fall so he could lose it to Batista at Wrestlemania and make him the flagship.....and the rest is history.
So I think Booker T was a victim of WWE not knowing the end results of the very storylines they were booking, but they still knew what types of storylines they were going to do and what their purposes were.
|
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Apr 16, 2010 2:16:15 GMT -5
I've said it many times, but I'm fully convinced the plan was for Booker T to win at WM but the plan was changed because of one man. Not HHH, but Bill Goldberg. Had WWE not signed Goldberg right before 'Mania, I'm sure that Booker would have won. Thank you for using common sense and reasoning and not blind hatred. I think people don't realize that the competitions backstage aren't between the same guys that are facing each other on screen. Booker T's real competition for his spot was Goldberg, not HHH. Not that I'm defending HHH, but we should be careful not to place blame where it doesn't belong. |
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Apr 16, 2010 2:33:12 GMT -5
I've said it many times, but I'm fully convinced the plan was for Booker T to win at WM but the plan was changed because of one man. Not HHH, but Bill Goldberg. Had WWE not signed Goldberg right before 'Mania, I'm sure that Booker would have won. Thank you for using common sense and reasoning and not blind hatred. I thin people don't realize that the competitions backstage aren't between the same guys that are facing each other on screen. Booker T's real competition for his spot was Goldberg, not HHH. That makes no sense. Goldberg didnt win the title for another 6 months. |
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Apr 16, 2010 2:42:02 GMT -5
Thank you for using common sense and reasoning and not blind hatred. I thin people don't realize that the competitions backstage aren't between the same guys that are facing each other on screen. Booker T's real competition for his spot was Goldberg, not HHH. That makes no sense. Goldberg didnt win the title for another 6 months. Exactly, and it's not like HHH could've won it right back in a rematch at Backlash. He could've did any number of things to screw Booker out of the title after Mania, but the way the fued was written, Book HAD to win at mania or it makes the whole company look racist. |
|
|
|
Post by thesunbeast on Apr 16, 2010 2:52:01 GMT -5
Thank you for using common sense and reasoning and not blind hatred. I thin people don't realize that the competitions backstage aren't between the same guys that are facing each other on screen. Booker T's real competition for his spot was Goldberg, not HHH. That makes no sense. Goldberg didn't win the title for another 6 months. Read my longer post. "Months" don't seperate anything. There are spots on a roster. It's not all about "da title", it's about the spots. You may have a main event monster heel, a main event underdog babyface, a midcard chicken heel, a midcard badass babyface, ect...those are all spots. If you have two of the same, say you have two midard chicken heels, then they are automatically competition for each other in real life. Right now, The Miz is a midcard arrogant heel, and so is Dolph Ziggler. If the two were on the same show, they would both be in competition to fill the role of the midcard chicken heel role, and so one would be used often in the role and the other would be pushed down a few levels. Same thing for monster heels, same thing for underdog babyfaces, and same thing for who is going to be the flagship of the company. They build up a heel before trying to make a flagship of a company. That's a big role you know. If they spend 5 months building to make Booker T the flagship, and they then change their minds and decide on Goldberg, they aren't just going to give the belt to Goldberg (that's not a flagship-like thing to do), they'd build for that moment for about 5 months. Like I said, the flagship has to have big moments or they aren't really the flagship. It may be true that HHH could have won the belt at backlash, sure, just like the hate HHH got for doing exactly that with Orton, and I'm not disputing that, and mabe I would have liked to see that, but that's an argument for why WWE should never make a serious storyline like that without knowing the victor, not an argument for why WWE should change their system of doing things. But at the same time, if you find yourself in a situation where you don't know who you're going to have win, should you really settle for a mediocre storyline for WRESTLEMANIA just because you don't know who's winning? |
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Apr 16, 2010 3:28:40 GMT -5
I don't even think the issue is Triple H here, but the tone of the angle. Even if it was CM Punk inhabited by the spirit of an alternate reality non-murderous Chris Benoit with a little baby Bryan Danielson in his kangaroo pouch doing the racial heel work, well, he'd still better lose.
|
|
|
|
Post by MichaelMartini on Apr 16, 2010 4:51:10 GMT -5
That makes no sense. Goldberg didn't win the title for another 6 months. Read my longer post. "Months" don't seperate anything. There are spots on a roster. It's not all about "da title", it's about the spots. You may have a main event monster heel, a main event underdog babyface, a midcard chicken heel, a midcard badass babyface, ect...those are all spots. If you have two of the same, say you have two midard chicken heels, then they are automatically competition for each other in real life. Right now, The Miz is a midcard arrogant heel, and so is Dolph Ziggler. If the two were on the same show, they would both be in competition to fill the role of the midcard chicken heel role, and so one would be used often in the role and the other would be pushed down a few levels. Same thing for monster heels, same thing for underdog babyfaces, and same thing for who is going to be the flagship of the company. They build up a heel before trying to make a flagship of a company. That's a big role you know. If they spend 5 months building to make Booker T the flagship, and they then change their minds and decide on Goldberg, they aren't just going to give the belt to Goldberg (that's not a flagship-like thing to do), they'd build for that moment for about 5 months. Like I said, the flagship has to have big moments or they aren't really the flagship. It may be true that HHH could have won the belt at backlash, sure, just like the hate HHH got for doing exactly that with Orton, and I'm not disputing that, and mabe I would have liked to see that, but that's an argument for why WWE should never make a serious storyline like that without knowing the victor, not an argument for why WWE should change their system of doing things. But at the same time, if you find yourself in a situation where you don't know who you're going to have win, should you really settle for a mediocre storyline for WRESTLEMANIA just because you don't know who's winning? It still doesn't make sense since Booker T, the underdog babyface would have been filling a different spot then Goldberg the monster face. It wouldn't have even hurt the storyline process. Booker is able to beat HHH for the title, but HHH uses his pull to get it back like he's done in the past (screwing Jericho for instance). The underdog has won a battle but not the war. Then comes Goldberg who's the strong enough contender to beat HHH and keep beating him to be the flagship. Faces can be transitional champs too and this would've been a perfect time for one. As for credibilty it's not like Booker wasn't a five time, five time, five time, five time, five time WCW champion. {Spoiler}Sucka! |
|
|
|
Post by baerrtt on Apr 16, 2010 11:31:49 GMT -5
I believe that Booker T was contemplating retiring that year even after the company had planned the original ending of him going over. Why go to all the effort of effectively promoting someone to a higher position when they're still actually considering leaving?
Quite frankly the distasteful race aspect of the feud would still annoy me regardless of who went over. It, imo, wasn't necessary.
|
|
